Objective：The previous study was to develop the“Itamikei”, a small machine which patients can use to record their subjective level of pain. And new assessment tool“Tablet PC application for Pain Memory”, which enable the user to visualize and record the pain levels both instantly and over time. The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of Pain Memory as a pain assessment tool for patients with cancer pain. Method：12 inpatients prescribed analgesics for cancer pain, were instructed to input their pain level into Pain Memory over a 2-week period, and the resulting graph was reviewed by the patient and staff. They also completed a questionnaire evaluating the design, function and pain assessment of the tool. Result：The patients input their pain level into Pain Memory 5.25 times／day（Md）, which provided increased opportunities to ascertain the patient’s pain level compared to that“Itamikei”. The design and function of the Pain Memory were given approximately rate 4 using a 5 point scale by both patients and staff members. Moreover, using Pain Memory, the patients highly rated the parameter“I understood changes in pain”, and the staff members highly rated the parameter“Patients participating in the treatment of pain”. Conclusion：We found Pain Memory could be useful in the assessment of pain. It provided more opportunities to ascertain the pain level of patients, and enabled the visualization of the pain level through a graph.

We report 2 cases of successful treatment by percutaneous catheter drainage and irrigation for methycillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) prosthetic graft infection after abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. Case 1 was a 71-year-old man in whom MRSA graft infection was diagnosed on the basis of high fever and CT-guided taps of the perigraft fluid 11 days after AAA repair, and a percutaneous catheter was inserted into the perigraft space by the CT-guided method. Case 2 was a 77-year-old man in whom MRSA graft infection was diagnosed because of high fever and purulent discharge from the wound of retroperitoneal drainage 5 days after AAA repair. A percutaneous catheter was placed into the retroperitoneal space via an extraperitoneal route. In both cases, intermittent irrigation by 0.5% Povidone-iodine solution and saline was performed as well as systemic and local antibiotic administration. The graft infection was well controlled and both patients were discharged after 4 months. Percutaneous catheter drainage and irrigation can be one of the choices for critically ill patients with graft infection after AAA repair.

We encountered 15 cases of surgical site infection (SSI) by Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) among 153 patients who underwent a cardiovascular operation in 2000. SSIs consisted of 5 mediastinal infections, 9 surface wound infections and 1 artificial graft infection after an abdominal aortic surgery. All infected cases had been operated on between June and December 2000. Eighty-three cases, which underwent cardiovascular operations during this period, were divided into SSI or no-SSI groups and their clinical data were analyzed. The data included age, gender, preoperative diabetes, urgency, preoperative usage of a device like Swan-Ganz catheter or IABP, preoperative albumin level, preoperative physical state by ASA score, National Nosocominal Infections Surveillance index, duration of operation, usage of a cardiopulmonary bypass, duration of bypass, type of operation, and number of distal anastomoses in CABG operations. Multivariate analysis showed gender (male), diabetes, and emergency operation as independent risk factors for the incidence of SSI by MRSA. One patient, who suffered a mediastinal infection after CABG, had confirmed as demonstrating the colonization of MRSA in sputum preoperatively. Microbiological screening of medical staff showed 2 of the 6 surgical doctors and 3 of the 25 ward nurses exhibited colonization with MRSA. DNA analysis of MRSA, harvested from 5 infected patients, indicated at least 2 strains of MRSA and 1 of the 2 strains was identical to the MRSA that was detected in a doctor. We applied prophylactic measures with reference to the guideline for prevention of surgical site infection announced by CDC in 1999, which included the following: routine work-up of MRSA-colonization, and treatment of all MRSA colonized patients and those undergoing emergency operations with Mupirocin. Preoperative patients were isolated from MRSA-infected or colonized patients. MRSA-colonized surgical personnel were treated with Mupirocin ointment. Cephazoline was administered shortly before and after the operation as a prophylactic antibiotic. Vancomycin was added to Cephazoline in patients with a history of MRSA-colonization or infection. Through hand washing before and after daily contact with patients was emphasised to all medical staff. SSI surveillance conducted by an infection control team was implemented. After the introduction of the prophylactic measurements, one MRSA-SSI was observed among 113 cases who underwent a cardiovascular operation between January and September 2001.